More usability

Research has shown that usability is the second most important property of
a website.

As an example of poor usability, current frames are a disaster!

The [back] button works unintuitively in many cases.

You cannot bookmark a collection of documents in a frameset.

If you do a [reload], the result may be different to what you had.

[page up] and [page down] are often hard to do.

You can get trapped in a frameset.

Usability of frames [continued]

Search engines find HTML pages, not Framed pages, so search results
usually give you pages without the navigation context that they were
intended to be in.

Since you can't content negotiatiate, <noframes> markup is
necessary for user agents that don't support frames. Search engines are
'user agents' that don't support frames! But despite that, almost no one
produces <noframes> content, and so it ruins web searches.

There are security problems caused by the fact that it is not visible
to the user when different frames come from different sources.

Currently devising a replacement for Frames.

Device-independence advantage: more navigational
possibilities.

Diversion: arachnophobia

"Google is, for all intents, a blind user. A billionaire blind user
with tens of millions of friends, all of whom hang on his every word. I
suspect Google will have a stronger impact than [laws] in building accessible
websites."

...

"In a world where Google likely has a valuation several orders of
magnitude higher than any chrome such as flash, graphics, audio,
interactivity, or "personalization", I see a heady revision."

Karsten M. Self

Spider traps

Sites with no content (e.g. Flash), no <noframes> content

Java/Javascript dependencies.

Obviously CGI-driven sites (bots avoid these as they tend to be spider
traps)

Session-ID'd URLs.

Audio content (not searchable)

Text-as-graphics. Google handles a number of formats, but it doesn't
OCR.